Senator Durbin responds

When I return from Hawaii last week, I found a letter from Senator Richard Durbin, dated 11 February 2009, in response to my letter regarding the Freedom of Choice Act.

His letter reads as follows, with my emphases and comments, a la Fr. Z.:

Dear Mr. Zehnle [my printed signature read "The Rev. Daren J. Zehnle," and my written signature read "Fr. Daren J. Zehnle;" apparently someone wasn't paying attention. It might be noted that Senator Durbin is a Catholic.]:

Thank you for contacting me about the Freedom of Choice Act . I appreciate hearing from you.

The Freedom of Choice Act was introduced in the 110th Congress [Notice the positive spin he gives it.]. It would have prohibited governments from denying or interfering with any woman's right to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman [That's one way to put it.] The measure would also have prohibited governments from discriminating against the exercise of these rights in the provision of benefits, facilities, services or information [To say nothing of the good of the child].

I understand your concern about the conscience rights of providers and others who might be affected by the Freedom of Choice Act [With all due respect, Senator, it does not seem you do.]. I will keep your views in mind in case the Freedom of Choice Act is reintroduced in the 111th Congress [I think he means when.].

I believe we can respect the rights established under Roe v. Wade and still work to reduce the number of aborations in America [Really? Would you care to elaborate on how that might be possible?]. Abortion should be safe and legal [It is rarely, if ever, "safe"], consistent with Roe v. Wade. It is a decision best left to a woman, her family, her doctor, and her conscience. Late-term abortions, including so-called partial birth abortions, should be strictly limited to cases where the life of the mother is in danger or she faces a medically certified risk of grievous physical injury [Apparently the death of a child is not a "grevious physical injury".].

We should encourage abstinence among our youth [how does legal abortion possibly do this?] and support family planning to avoid unintended pregancies that may lead to abortion [How many married couples seek an abortion? This is a serious question; I don't know this answer, but I can't imagine the number would be high.]. If a woman is confronted with an unintended pregnancy [there is a very easy way to avoid this], we should work to ensure that motherhood and adoption are realistic options [I fail to see how this is consistent with what he has said above]. I support programs that provide assistance to pregnant women to help them face the costs of continuing a pregnancy. In addition, we should support pregnant women by working to address underlying concerns such as affordable health care [the FOCA would, unless I am quite mistaken, make abortions part of this affordable health care, which contradicts what the Senator says], wages, child care, and education that may make it harder for a couple to welcome a child. I also favor tax breaks to help families afford adoptions, and I have cosponsored legislation, subsequently enacted into law, that extended and increased the tax credit for adoption expenses [is this somehow supposed to make up for your support of abortion?].

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel free to stay in touch.

You can be sure I will stay in touch with Senator Durbin.